memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Human/archive
Capitalization? Is there a consensus on whether "human" should be capitalized when it's used as a species name? -- EtaPiscium 17:07, 22 Sep 2004 (CEST) :Evidently not. I was wondering the same thing, over four months later. :The question is whether "human" should be treated consistently with other sentient species ("Vulcan", "Klingon") or whether it should be treated as it is in contemporary usage (i.e., not capitalized). My leaning is toward the latter, but a consensus on this would be helpful. --Josiah Rowe 19:18, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT) I like it in caps, as we are speaking within the trek universe. However, I will bow gracefully to a community consensus. Tyrant 19:41, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT)Tyrant ::Out of the hundreds of species we have in the Trekverse, all of their names are uniformly capitalised, except for "human". This seems rather Human-centric imo, and too 21st-century for MA's supposedly 24th-century pov. Therefore, we should either start writing "klingon" and "vulcan" in addition to "human", or go the easier route by just uniformly capitalising "Human". Randee15 22:16, 6 Mar 2005 (GMT) 4 species? What are the other 3 species from earth? : I believe it is supposed to just be three, the other two would be the Voth, and the Cetaceans. Evidently someone mistaked the Federation as a species, to make four. --Gvsualan 23:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: The forth is Neanderthal. Jaf 06:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Jaf Picard quote I've removed the sentence about humans no longer having aquisition of wealth as their driving force. Perhaps Picard was only trying to make us sound better than we are in First Contact, but we've seen enough evidence of humans still trying to make money. -- Redge | ''Overleg'' 11:52, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC) Should we include the eventual evolutionary tract of Humanity as depicted in ? — THOR ''=/\='' 18:15, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) *It can only be a possible evolutionary tract as evolution is not linear, if it were every species on Earth would be the same, everything coming from one cell and all. I have no idea why sickbay would have caused such an odd survival adaptation... heh. Jaf 19:24, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf :Not to mention That process was forced cellular evolution, that might not actually represent the evolution track how it wents, the physique was altered within hours and some stretching and mutations are shown. It is basicly not evolution, but mutationary evolution instead. Not to mention the evolutionary sidetracking: Species can evolution to different paths (dictated by theyr enviroment), like within apes and humans. They all got same ancestry, the lungfish. If there is a "atlantean" Human species that lives on aquatic planet, theyr much rather higher possibility to grow lungs than tree climbing limbs. If they keep living in low gravity artificial space, they rather grow thicker antiradioactive skin and bone structure lighter to survive better space. --JHawx 14:11, June 24, 2010 (UTC) Suggestion How about a heading called "views by other species"? It may be interesting to see how Vulcans, Klingons, Borg, etc feel about humans. We might also note that the Vulcan word for the species is "koomihn" and Ferengi call them "hew-mons".--StAkAr Karnak 12:59, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) Feeble bags of mostly water :As feeble as they are looked upom by other species of the United Federation of Planets, humans are called the glue that holds the Federation together. The above is a recently added sentence that I edited. But is it really needed? --From Andoria with Love 07:48, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) :Well... Are they considered "feeble" by others (sources!)? Are they specifically called "the glue that holds the Federation together" (sources!)? If so, then yes, it should be part of the article - perhaps with the colloquial "feeble" changed to something else. If not, then not. -- Cid Highwind 13:26, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) Temporary PNA I'm too tired to find the exact place where the table was added showing different ethnicities and I apologize to whoever worked so hard on getting all those pics to align the way they do, but the table was just too wide. Hopefully someone else will be able to sort it out because I'm going to bed, for now it has a table with lined up but oddly sized pics. Oh, and to correct my edit summary, I understand the table's placement now, but that goes to show I need sleep. ;) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 08:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC) :I figure it has the most relevance to "Biology" and I moved it there with an altered title to better fit. Personally, I don't like the 'racial scorecard' quality of the table at all, since that kind of thinking is supposedly left behind in the Trek universe. --Aurelius Kirk 08:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC) ::I too don't know if it is even necessary to showcase all the different ethnicities - unless this was addressed in the episodes somewhere, ethnicity/descent generally seems to be a non-issue on Star Trek. Perhaps with the exception of "Native American" (Chakotay, some of the relocated groups found on other planets), but I guess we have an own article for that (if not, we should). The main problem here, though, seems to be the do-it-yourself style of this "gallery". There's a Mediawiki feature for exactly that, so maybe we should try to find all the existing self-made galleries, decide which ones are really necessary and convert them into correct markup. The way it is now, simply uploading another revision of an image contained in this table will break the complete thing if the aspect ratio isn't exactly the same. Bad idea... :) -- Cid Highwind 09:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC) :::Yeah... Originally, it had some pics on the side that said humans of whatever descent, which is fair enough. My initial reaction when I saw the gigantic table was to just remove it, but then I thought other people would oppose that decision. Now I'm starting to think it might make sense from a "scientific" standpoint, but I don't know. Also, thanks for fixing it Aurelius. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 05:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Races I'm not so sure I like the listing and titling of race groups, the social sciences and biology have been avoiding catagorizing in that way for years because of its obvious problems and I'm assuming Wikipedia is avoiding it for similar reasons. But, more to the point for MA, do these terms and groupings have trek references? Otherwise I really don't see what they add to the article. Jaf 13:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf :There is only one race - The Human race.--MikeStrett 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Protection I've protected Human from being edited by non-registered users since some IP user continues to add irrelevant inforation to the article. --From Andoria with Love 18:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC) really though there are at least a handful of episodes that clearly show the Human race was the product of "seeding" by other species, doesn't that mean that the canonical explanation is that darwin was horribly wrong? and that biological evolution DID NOT happen at all on earth, at least not to humans?0101010 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC) :Don't those episodes say 'life was seeded' not that humans were seeded (I am taking it you are refering to TNG 'The Chase'). If that is the case Darwin was correct (We all evolved from a common ancestor).--MikeStrett 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC) The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. They are commonly confused to be the same thing, but they are not. Moved from talk:Species 5618 This shoud be merged with and redirected to Human, like Species 180 redirects to Ferengi. Kennelly 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC) * Agreed, merge. --Alan del Beccio 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC) * I disagree. It's a distinct enough a term to merit its own article. Just has "Terran" has its own page, instead of an unimaginative redirect to Human. -- Krevaner 23:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC) *Consistency is the key, there shouldn't be one Borg species designation a separate article while the others aren't. Also, Terran is more than just another name for Humans, its an adjective describing a whole lot of things.Kennelly 00:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC) *Not too mention that Terrans was used far more often than Species 5618. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC) What makes humans different Perhaps more so than in other Science Fiction series (like Farscape and Babylon 5 (see example:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se9FNdyKFtk, touching isn't it? )) the defining thing about humanity is a very strong will and perspective that can get them through anything. This fact belongs in the article I think. It is obvious (to those looking for it) in most episodes and movies. 12:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC) :It seems more like POV fan speculation/perspective than anything else to me. It isn't something really stated in canon, I don't think it really belongs. It isn't like Babylon 5, where Human qualities are emphasized and flat stated, like that "humans form communities, it is their greatest strength". We don't have a speech by Emperor Malari, or something equivalent that I can recall. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC) I know there is nothing as obvious as a speech (that clip was from a movie anyway), but if you look for it, you can see it all through the multiple series and movies. There is always the Human factor that makes Humans different. Usually it is portrayed in contrast to the other races (the other races are basically based on individual aspects of humanity). There is always that factor of how humans are superior in some important but not too apparent a way to most aliens. And that clip wasn't an example of how it is in star trek, it is an example of some of the qualities I am talking about. 05:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Past Tense Can I please go ahead and put this article in the past tense, like the other species articles? It just seems inconsistent. --Commodore Sixty-Four(talk) 11:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC) :It's driven me nuts for too long. If we are going to have a past tense policy here, it needs to apply everywhere. So I did it. If you disagree, you can always revert. --C64 11:03 10/10/2007 ::Why? It seems stupid as it infers the species is extinct which it is not even in canon. :::MA:POV. - 02:40, January 10, 2011 (UTC) Biology I added a PNA cite to the Biology section. While true, it needs Trek citations.– Cleanse 09:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Every episode? :So far, humans are the only species to have made a appearance in every episode of all six ''Star Trek series and all ten films. In addition, the lead characters of every Star Trek series so far has been a human.'' How do we define "appearance"? What about , where only representations of humans were seen?--31dot 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC) :"Humans are the only species to have made an appearance in every episode to date of all six Star Trek series and all eleven films." What about ? AFAIR, there were no humans there, only holograms. 16:34, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::So... you're repeating exactly what is said immediately above? -- sulfur 17:05, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :::This should read like this: :Humans are the only species to have made an appearance in every production of ''Star Trek, with the exception of , where the humans seen were just holographic representations. :::- 17:54, February 25, 2010 (UTC) Questioned note Several episodes of Enterprise and Voyager reveal that such interspecies breeding was risky, and would most likely fail without medical intervention. One prominent example is that of a Vulcan-Human hybrid such as Spock, who is explicity stated in 2009's Star Trek motion picture to have been the result of genetic adjustment to allow Amanda to concieve; real physical law indicates that a natural half-Vulcan such as Spock is chemically impossible, because the two species' blood chemistry (copper vs. iron) are biochemically incompatible. I haven't removed this yet, but the article already states that medical help is sometimes needed, and I don't recall it being mentioned in the movie. Does anyone know what scene it was in?--31dot 10:49, December 6, 2009 (UTC) :In case of belanna torres, it is said that its guite possible with Humans and Klingons. These 2 species are biologically compatible, but within other species it can get quite risky. Truth of this can be found within Belanna Torres & K'Ehleyr (different combination of half Human half klingon father mother combo). Klingons even looked much more like humans in original Star Trek series and when asked worf about it, he only breafly comments it as "It was genetical mishap" and that "We rather dont speak of it" (episode where Enterprise crew revisits episode of the original series due timetravel where they had a problem with furry species overbreeding). Racial trait being klingon forehead ridge, which is slightly smaller than of the Klingon equivalent. --JHawx 16:22, February 25, 2010 (UTC) ::That wasn't in the movie I saw. - 17:50, February 25, 2010 (UTC) : Well your right about that, because it was seen in the series, where the crew went back to find a person who tried to alternate the past, thatswhy i said they "revisited" the movie. --JHawx 19:09, February 25, 2010 (UTC) :::That wasn't in the episode either. First, it wasn't the crew of the Enterprise that went back in time, second, Worf never made any mentions of genetic mishaps. All he said was "we don't speak of it with outsiders." --OuroborosCobra talk 19:16, February 25, 2010 (UTC) Naming incostincency? I just figured out that naming is intypical to the universe on humans. Other species is referred by their originating planetary systems (eq, acamarian, lives at acamaria III). Now humans are called "human" or "Terrans", but accordingly to the logic of intergalaxial naming, humans should be then called "Solarians". Oh, and btw: humans are also being called "Pinkskins, hue-mans" and so on... Maybe its nothing special, and maybe writers were just a little lazy on naming issues, dont know, but its kinda funny. --JHawx 16:01, February 25, 2010 (UTC) :Well, consider the Klingons, who definitely don't come from Kling or Klingus (although those were presented in earlier non-canon productions)--they come from Qo'noS. It would seem that some species (if not many) have "alternate" names for themselves--humans almost exclusively refer to themselves as such, but sometimes aliens will refer to them as "Terrans". Similarly, when someone from Acamaria III (to use your example) refers to themselves as an Acamarian, they may be doing it primarily for the purpose of simplifying communication with aliens. -Mdettweiler 17:47, February 25, 2010 (UTC) :: Well thats also little bizarre, as "Terra" is latin reference to earth, or infact ground soil surface opposed to sky or moon. Our star, which is a sun, is latin for "Sole", thus it would be more consistent that other species would speak of us as in "Solarians" from Sol III. But as you mentioned it, it might be how aliens have self image and relationship to their sun. Humans seem to believe they came from the erath and revolve on the idea. People who live in the moon also dont refer themselfs as "Moonians"... I wonder if it would be different if Earth was not only livable planet in the solarsystem. But is there another notable races which home planet differs from the name of theyr race? Bajorans are still bajorans, vulcans are from vulcan, Romulans are from vulcan (but thats different story alltogether). I dont remember this correctly, but isnt Klingons originally from another planet? before accident of the energy moon or something??? (movie where cpt. kirk is accused of murder with bones???) Wasent that planet called klingon? --JHawx 19:32, February 25, 2010 (UTC) :No, as seen in Enterprise they were on Qo'noS the whole time. The planets atmosphere did seem to change in color somewhat between ENT and TNG, however, so that may have been a result of the Praxis incident. -Mdettweiler 06:42, February 26, 2010 (UTC) it is also possible that this is an exception that proves the rule scenario it may well be that most beings do refer to themselves as something such as acamarians from acamariaIII while there just happen to be a few that go by something completely different such as klingons from Qo'nos (Thetrekinator 14:58, March 26, 2010 (UTC)) :The truth is, Star Trek writers have always used species name as if it were a nationality, such as Americans coming from the nation of America. In reality, this makes no sense, as the only reason to do that is to differentiate oneself from people of other nationalities. However, as it is inconceivable that an indigenous race evolving on a planet would have the slightest idea that aliens exist, there would be no point in trying to differentiate oneself from other species :An in-universe explanation could be that aliens from the planet Rigel don't actually refer to themselves as Rigelians, but that, at some point, some space-faring species discovered the Rigelians' existence and said, "huh, those aliens come from Rigel. We'll call them Rigelians." And from that point on, the universal translator converted whatever word Rigelians use to refer to themselves to "Rigelians." But of course, that is pure speculation. - Blair2009 15:11, March 26, 2010 (UTC) Latin Well, 1 thing i am sure of its the "modern Human being" is called "homo sapiens sapiens" as in "resident Human habitant". the repetition is there for a reason, the homo sapiens means our ancestral stage of humans. as a "future human", would be "Homo Postremo Sapiens", but then again, as we see it in the point of future, the "homo sapiens sapiens" would be correct or the "Space Humans" aka "Homo caelum Sapiens" (note, theres no latin word for space, so nearest possible is "people of the sky". I took the liberty to fix that part of the text to correct it to back where it was. If you dont belive me just google latin word for "modern Human being latin" --JHawx 23:25, May 1, 2010 (UTC) :The issue isn't whether you are correct or not(I know you are) but if it was used in canon or not. I'm actually not sure if it was or not.--31dot 23:27, May 1, 2010 (UTC) ::In this case I don't think it matters if the latin name is canon. If it was used as "homo sapiens" in the show then it should stay that way, if it wasn't used in the show then the note isn't even necessary. — Morder (talk) 23:29, May 1, 2010 (UTC) Capitalization revisited I know that the whole "human vs. Human" issue has been pretty much settled, but something recently occured to me, and I wanted to know if it would change anybody's minds: I've checked, and all other instances (at least on Enterprise) use the same format. Just thought I'd put this out there. -Angry Future Romulan 19:51, May 28, 2010 (UTC) :Doesn't really change anything, IMO as it should be judge upon the context of the scene and usage, and in that particular moment, I don't think the Insectoid was referring to Archer as a Human as in his species (Compared to the name of the Guardians and the Spheres), but rather to Archer as a person, there's plenty of terms used to refer to a person and the term itself is generally not capitalized.--Terran Officer 19:57, May 28, 2010 (UTC) Perhaps, but you wouldn't expcect him to say "the klingon claims..." And then there's this: -Angry Future Romulan 20:11, May 28, 2010 (UTC) :Don't know about that, but it seems rather pointless and ill conceived to lowercase "Human" because some of the alien language subtitles lower it, and all of the other species are uppercase. It should be one way or another on the database not half and half depending on which does it and which not, especially as subtitles have been wrong before (just like opening/end credits have).--Terran Officer 20:28, May 28, 2010 (UTC) The way I see it, by capitalizing the H, we're trying to make things consistent. But the inconsistency was never the capitalaization issue, it was the fact that wer're not called "Terrans" or "Earthicans," or something like that. But since that's an inconsistency that we'll never solve, it's just something we have to live with. That, and the fact that, since it was always a little h throughout the third season of Enterprise, it wasn't a mistake, but a decision made by the producers. Therefore the decision has already been made for us. Just my opinion. -Angry Future Romulan 20:51, May 28, 2010 (UTC) ::Capitalization is for consistency. Since Humans were called Humans in Trek, that's the species name, not "Terrans" or "Earthers" or whatever. Oh, and subtitles are irrelevant. Just like closed captioning. -- sulfur 23:37, May 28, 2010 (UTC) Well, I tried. -Angry Future Romulan 18:21, May 30, 2010 (UTC) Quote I like the quote that was recently added to the top of this article, but I'm wondering if we could find one that is a little shorter. I don't think it needs to be removed unless/until we find another one.--31dot 23:34, June 22, 2010 (UTC) Miri Humans also originated on a different planet in the episode Miri. This planet was nearly identical to Earth from the past and might have actually been called Earth, I haven't been able to find a reference to it in this article. I feel it should be there. What is the best way to work it in? --wa' DaHoHchugh chotwI' SoH, wa''uy' DaHoHchugh charghwI' SoH, Hoch DaHoHchugh Qun SoH. 23:59, April 13, 2012 (UTC) :I haven't seen that episode recently, but I'm not entirely convinced that it should be worked in. They might be identical to Humans- but many aliens look like Humans and aren't. We already have an article about the kids on the planet. 31dot 01:06, April 14, 2012 (UTC) Opening quote: an alien perspective? I kind of think the opening quote for the article on humans should be from an alien perspective, perhaps this one from : :"We don't know what to do about humans. Of all the species we've made contact with, yours is the only one we can't define. You have the arrogance of Andorians, the stubborn pride of Tellarites...one moment you're as driven by your emotions as Klingons, and the next you confound us by suddenly embracing logic!" ::: - Ambassador Soval, 2154 How's that sound? If it's too long we could probably cut out the first sentence. - Mitchz95 (talk) 03:45, July 26, 2012 (UTC) :I don't necessarily oppose this proposed quote, but I think the current one is fine. I guess you could call me neutral here. 31dot (talk) 09:24, July 26, 2012 (UTC) Delete mirror universe section? We already have a page for the mirror universe humans (Terran_(mirror)), so why do we need a section on mirror universe humans in this article? -- 01:50, May 23, 2013 (UTC) :I added a "main article" link. I think it's worth keeping for the convenience of readers, as long as we keep the bulk of the info on the other page. - Mitchz95 (talk) 02:23, May 23, 2013 (UTC) Holotoype In science there is no holotype for Homo Sapiens however two Trek connected people have been suggested to the Linnean Society at various times. Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson was suggested a couple of years ago but rejected for not being a typical example. In the early 60's Jeffrey Hunter was suggested. At the time it was nulled due to the cold war. However As Pike he is the first Human seen in the 'Star Trek' universe so perhaps we should use a picture of Pike as the Holotype of Humans? Lt.Lovett (talk) 11:18, September 19, 2013 (UTC) :Leaving out the reality aspect of this and keeping this within the Star Trek universe, why should Pike's image be representative of all Humans? We saw Pike very little relative to most other Human characters seen on Star Trek. 31dot (talk) 11:42, September 19, 2013 (UTC) He was the first seen, and is a typical human. Although perhaps the person who has been seen the most would be consistent with most other pages. That would I guess be Picard who was in the most episodes and films combined (although I think Riker ties him). Maybe a civilian background character so that it is a typical Human rather than featured character who we know a lot about. I'm not sure the group shot of extras really works. Lt.Lovett (talk) 13:20, September 19, 2013 (UTC) ::The group of people is good because it shows some nice diversity. -- sulfur (talk) 13:44, September 19, 2013 (UTC) :::I agree the picture shouldn't be changed, but the factoid might be worthy of inclusion in the background section, if you can source it. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:21, September 19, 2013 (UTC) Homo sapiens vs. Homo sapiens sapiens Humans are not just Homo sapiens, but are instead Homo sapiens sapiens, a subspecies of the former. Neanderthals are, when listed specifically, called Homo sapiens neanderthalis, and thus I believe a distinction should be made here. If not an outright change, then a change to "(Homo sapiens, sometimes Homo sapiens sapiens,)" I understand it's a technicality that's mostly unrelated to the article, but it is more scientifically accurate, and I believe it should be implemented. Star Trek has always been more accurate to reality than most sci-fi media, and we shouldn't fail in that regard. 19:35, April 6, 2014 (UTC) :We use whatever term was used in the sources listed here in articles. If you can show where the term you mention was used, we would have something there- but I don't recall it. 31dot (talk) 01:58, April 7, 2014 (UTC)